Judge tells Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni to work out dispute over dismissal of emotional distress claims
Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s legal squabble over her claims of emotional distress hit a roadblock Tuesday when a federal judge refused to let Lively dismiss them on her preferred terms, instead telling both sides to reach an agreement.
The recent dispute between the “It Ends With Us” co-stars, who have been entangled in a high-profile legal battle for months, arose after Baldoni’s lawyers requested Lively’s medical and mental health records to defend against her claims that he intentionally and negligently inflicted emotional distress while they were on the set of the film.
Lively’s initial complaint in December accused Baldoni of sexual harassment, as well as retaliation, after she raised issues about his on-set behavior — allegations Baldoni’s lawyers have denied. Since then, the two stars have been embroiled in a tense legal standoff, with each accusing the other of having orchestrated a smear campaign.
Rather than provide medical and mental health records requested by Baldoni’s team, Lively offered to drop her emotional distress claims, according to court documents filed Monday. In response, Baldoni’s lawyers Monday disputed her request to dismiss the claims “without prejudice,” meaning she would be able to refile them later. In a court filing, Baldoni’s team argued that Lively should permanently dismiss her claims if she will not provide the medical records it requested.
In its own court filing hours later, Lively’s team called Baldoni’s motion a “false and plainly improper public relations stunt” and asked the court to deny and strike the motion entirely.
On Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman of the Southern District of New York denied Lively’s request but wrote that she can file a formal motion asking for dismissal without prejudice. Otherwise, Liman wrote, Lively’s and Baldoni’s teams must agree among themselves whether the dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
He also denied Baldoni’s motion to force Lively to provide her medical records, saying the request is rendered moot now that Lively is withdrawing her emotional distress claims.
Liman’s ruling pressures Lively to dismiss her claims either way, as he wrote that “if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.”
In a statement, Lively’s lawyers Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb wrote that Lively offered to dismiss those claims “because they are no longer necessary, and she will continue to pursue emotional distress damages through other claims in her lawsuit, including sexual harassment and retaliation.”
“In addition, the Baldoni-Wayfarer strategy of filing retaliatory claims has exposed them to expansive damages under California law,” Lively’s lawyers wrote.
(Wayfarer Studios, the production company behind “It Ends With Us,” which Baldoni co-founded, is a defendant along with Baldoni.)
“This is exactly where both parties were before the Baldoni-Wayfarer Parties rushed to file this utterly pointless motion to compel, all searching for yet another press moment,” Lively’s lawyers wrote.
Lawyers for Baldoni did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
Baldoni’s filing Monday argued that Lively was trying to avoid providing her medical records while preserving her claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
“Ms. Lively cannot have it both ways. If Ms. Lively wants to withdraw her frivolous IED [intentional infliction of emotional distress] Claims, the Wayfarer Parties are entitled to a dismissal with prejudice to ensure they will not be re-filed,” Baldoni’s lawyers said in the filing. “If Ms. Lively is unwilling to stipulate to the dismissal of her IED Claims with prejudice, then the Wayfarer Parties will continue to defend against them, and she must produce her medical information and documents as set forth herein.”
Baldoni’s lawyers were specifically seeking the names and addresses of her health care providers, their treatment notes and signed privacy forms authorizing the release of her records. They wrote in their filing Monday that because she claimed emotional injuries, Lively has placed her mental condition “at issue” and thus “waived any doctor-patient privilege.”
Lively’s lawyers countered Baldoni’s motion in their response Monday, arguing that Lively voluntarily agreed to withdraw her emotional distress claims “in good faith” to streamline the case. They added that Baldoni’s team had conceded that that means their request for medical records would become moot.
Lively’s filing also claimed that Baldoni’s lawyers did not raise any objections to her proposed revisions to the joint stipulation for dismissal during a conference call Monday. It alleged that Baldoni’s team instead rushed to file a “clearly pre-written Motion the minute that the teleconference concluded.”
“Almost immediately thereafter, tabloid media began reporting ‘exclusively’ on Ms. Lively’s ‘shock’ move, claiming that she has ‘sensationally’ dropped her IIED claim, quoting extensively from the Motion,” Lively’s filing said.
Aside from asking the court to deny and strike the motion, Lively’s lawyers had asked Liman on Monday to consider sanctions for the opposition’s “continued abuse of this Court’s docket.”
“The Motion was filed for a single audience: the media,” Lively’s filing said. “There is nothing for this Court to compel.”
Lively and Baldoni are expected to go to trial in March.